Introduction
On July 23-24, 2003, a private scientific
research team documented physical evidence
that confirmed Art Rantala’s eyewitness
observation that the Mayville/Kekoskee,
Wisconsin crop circle formation was
not made by hoaxers.

The team consisted
of Gary Kahlhamer of Horicon, Wisconsin,
Dr. Charles Lietzau and Jeffrey Wilson
of Michigan, and Roger Sugden of Indiana.
Arriving at the field on July 23, 2002,
we discovered and photographed the presence
of several anomalies that cannot be
duplicated by hoaxers.

Eyewitness
Account
Art Rantala, a retired truck driver,
on July 4, 2003 at approximately 7:30
AM Central Daylight Time (CDT), was
up early making coffee in his workshop
and watching a weather front that was
moving across the Dodge County, Wisconsin
area. His workshop is located a few
miles from the town of Mayville and
the village of Kekoskee, and situated
at the top of a hill overlooking a wheat
field across the street (owned by a
Mrs. Schraufnagel, and farmed by a third
party). Art poured his first cup of
coffee at 7:35 AM CDT noticing the time
on his coffee maker. A few minutes later
(approx. 7:40 AM CDT), as the rain was
falling, the wind picked up, and Mr.
Rantala noticed that the bark began
flying off a hickory nut tree that was
about 10 feet outside his open, East-facing
workshop window.

[View
from Mr. Rantala’s workshop of
the hickory nut tree with missing bark.]

He leaned out the window to take a
closer look. Mr. Rantala then noticed
that directly across the street, a group
of trees “started swinging every
which-way.” He said that as he
followed the trees blowing around, his
gaze naturally followed down to the
wheat field where the circles appeared
one by one, right in front of him.

[View of the
circle formation from Mr. Rantala’s
workshop window.]

The Northern-most circle,
farthest away from the road (what we
have named Circle #1 in order of appearance),
formed first, appearing as a ‘black
hole’ in the standing wheat that
was created when the circle of wheat
was flattened down. Next, the Southern-most
circle closest to the road formed (Circle
#2), followed by the one in the center
(Circle #3). Mr. Rantala said all the
circles were flattened in roughly 12
seconds, but no more than 15 seconds.
Mr. Rantala’s important eyewitness
observation to the crop circles forming
may be the first ever recorded in the
USA, and is certainly one of only a
couple of dozen reported worldwide in
the last 50 years. Mr. Rantala reported
that there was no apparent means for
the wheat to have been swirled and flattened
– nothing unusual in the sky,
no lights, no unusual sounds, and no
unusual odors. Whatever the energetic
force was that caused the circles to
form, it was beyond the range of visible
sight.

Plant Anomalies
Many of the plants inside these circles,
though, bear witness to the formative
energies in the form of ‘blown
node collars’ or expulsion cavities.
The joint or node collars were flash
heated by so much energy, that their
internal moisture turned to steam causing
them to explode and rupture like popcorn.
We also located plants with blown node
collars inside ‘randomly-downed’
patches of flattened wheat that were
also found in the field as far away
as 500ft from the circle formation.

[View of one
of the many blown node collars from
the flattened stalks of wheat found
inside the formation.]

Blown node collars
have never been found in any hoaxed
crop circles, nor in any control samples
that have ever been studied. There is
no known technology that is able to
duplicate this blown node collar effect
on thousands of plants in these downed
areas of crop fields. However, this
effect has been reproduced by putting
stems into a microwave oven, and cooking
them for a short time. The appearance,
then, of these blown node collars is
conclusive evidence - in itself - that
these circles were not flattened by
human-mechanical means.

We also discovered several wheat stems
with ‘seed axis deformities.’

[View of one
of the stalks of wheat found in the
formation with a seed axis deformity
in the stalk just below the seed head.]

These seed axis deformities
are affected sections of the stalk just
below the seed head, and have been twisted
around in a ‘curly-q’ effect.
This has been reported in only a few
crop circles worldwide, and was first
reported in 1999 in a crop circle formation
in the UK near Avebury in Wiltshire
County. This deformity has also never
been found in standing plants or control
samples.

We also followed the
L-NEAT (Levengood Node Elongation Analysis
Test) scientific protocol to determine
if there was a statistical difference
in the measurement of growth nodes of
plants inside the circles as compared
to the measured length of growth nodes
of control plants taken from outside
the circles in the standing wheat. This
test positively identified the fact
that the growth nodes of plants found
inside the circles were statistically
larger than the growth nodes of plants
measured from outside the circles in
the standing wheat. This elongation
or enlargement of the growth nodes of
these plants cannot be duplicated by
any demonstrated hoaxing techniques.
This positive result from L-NEAT test,
then, independently and conclusively
confirms that no human-mechanical means
were used in the creation of these crop
circles. [For the statistical data,
see the Appendix.]

Our team also obtained
plant samples and control samples for
further analysis. We also understand
that plant samples were collected by
researchers from the University of Wisconsin
- Eau Clare and Madison, and have been
forwarded to biophysicist W.C. Levengood
of Grass Lake, Michigan, and to Nancy
Talbott of the BLT, Inc. Research Team
of Cambridge, Massachusetts. We look
to them to carry out many of the time
consuming studies necessary to document
the characteristics of the formative
energies, but those laboratory results
will take months, and we wanted to conclusively
determine the authenticity of the formation
while it was still fresh. Bent growth
nodes in the past have been used as
a determination of the authenticity
of crop circle formations, but that
methodology does not always work. Both
phototropism and geotropism can cause
node bending after crops are flattened,
although it has been shown experimentally
to take several days for those processes
to exhibit a noticeable growth node
bending effect. Because we arrived at
the formation almost three weeks after
it formed, we did not use node bending
as a criteria for authenticity, nor
as it turns out, did we need to.

Soil Anomaly
and Sampling
Further, we carried out the collection
process for obtaining soil samples and
conclusively noted another anomaly.
Roger Sugden did a preliminary field
test of the soil using a magnet and
discovered that the soil showed a high
magnetic response.

[The left photo
is of soil inside the formation which
shows a HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE; complete,
multi layer coverage of the probe. The
right photo is of soil outside the formation
used as a control showing a low magnetic
response; demonstrating incomplete coverage
of the magnet.]

As we continued the
field test, we obtained soil samples
on a North-South line across the formation,
and we again tested the soil for this
magnetic effect. Every sample from inside
the circles was found to consist of
soil that showed this highly magnetic
response. We also applied this test
to the control samples we obtained from
outside the circles beginning with soil
just outside the flattened wheat areas,
and continuing to several hundred yards
away to the back of the field. Only
two of the samples close to the circle
formation showed this property of being
highly magnetic, while the others taken
farther away showed signs of having
some magnetic particles but at a much
lower proportion. Using the statistical
Fisher Exact Probability Test, the soil
samples are significant at p = 0.0147.
This in-the-field observational test
shows that the soil inside the circles
anomalously consisted of more magnetic
particles than the control soil outside
the circles in the same field. We are
planning to further analyze the soil
samples in a lab environment.

GPS Anomaly
The crop circle formation is located
at approximately 43?31.81m N latitude,
and 88?31.59m W longitude. This location
was confirmed through using two different
Global Positioning System (GPS) units.
However, we were unable to conclusively
obtain an approximate feet-above-sea-level
measurement from within the formation.
Our attempt resulted in a constantly
changing measurement ranging from –242ft
below sea level to over +1142 ft above
sea level (the area is approximately
+566ft above sea level). This effect
on the GPS system was witnessed by the
entire team and videotaped. The effect
was not noted in GPS control readings
taken from outside the formation. Noting
the anomaly, we carried out a statistical
test from several areas from within
Circle #2 and compared them to readings
taken with the GPS from outside the
circles that conclusively determined
the anomalous effect existed.

Considering that our
team arrived nearly three weeks after
the crop circles formed, we did not
expect to find the presence of any residual
Electro-Magnetic anomalies. In fact,
we did conduct a preliminary Electro-Magnetic
field measurement soon after arriving
at the location. We took measurements
from inside the formation and from outside
the formation which showed no elevated
measurements of either electric field
strength or magnetic field strength.
So, due to time constraints, and considering
our past experience of not finding high
E-M readings more than approximately
10 days after circle formation, we abandoned
those tests. It was only later that
we noted the GPS anomaly, which remains
unexplained, and may not have been caused
the presence of high Electro-Magnetic
fields, but by some other undetermined
cause.

Crop Circle Formation Description
and Measurements

[Overhead aerial photo of the circle
formation.]

The Kekoskee / Mayville,
Wisconsin formation is interesting in
several aspects – although Mr.
Rantalla described the formation event
as each circle flattening individually
one by one, the three circles are related
to each other through their design form.
Circle #1 and Circle #3 are connected
by a pathway that was part of the original
formation -creating a classic ‘dumbbell’-type
(two circles connected by a pathway)
shape aligned in a North-South direction.
Circle #2 was isolated in the field
(and offset from the N-S alignment),
but was related to Circle #3 in an interesting
way. The obvious feature of Circle #3
is the standing crescent of wheat that
has been created through the offset
flattening of a circle of wheat. The
obvious feature of Circle #2 is the
standing circle of wheat which then
creates a flattened ‘crescent.’
Although all the circles (including
the standing one) when measured prove
to be elliptical, when you compare the
flattened interior circle’s diameter
of Circle #3 with the diameter of the
standing circle of wheat in Circle #2
along their NE/SW, they both measure
22’ in diameter. Circle #2 and
Circle #3 are in alignment NE/SW. All
the circles when measured along their
E/W diameter were 42’exactly.

Pathway – measurements:
18’ long (Flattened from South
to North) by 2’2” wide.

We believe that this
formation began to be formed with this
pathway. We could clearly follow the
pathway’s flattened wheat into
the lay of Circle #1, where there was
a ‘ring’ of flattened wheat
that was layered over the top of it
swirled counter-clockwise. All of the
wheat in Circle #1’s ‘central
circle’ was flattened directly
to the North, which was at the Northern-most
point flattened over the top of the
flattened ring.

There were also many
areas of ‘randomly-downed’
sections of flattened wheat in this
same field where there exhibited the
weaving and swirls associated with crop
circle formation, but without any geometric
design to these areas.

Crop Circle
Location Geology and Context
The second day of our investigation
began with the team splitting up to
gather additional context information.
Roger Sugden rented a plane and hired
a pilot to take several aerial photos
of the formation. Dr. Chuck Lietzau
and Gary Kahlhamer went back to the
formation site to examine more plants
and take additional samples. I (Jeffrey
Wilson) went to investigate several
nearby Indian mound formations and gather
information about the area from the
local chamber of commerce in nearby
Horicon, Wisconsin. The local area,
we learned is very unique, and may have
had a contributing role to play in why
the crop circle formation appeared in
the location it did. Dodge County, Wisconsin
happens to have one of the largest concentrations
of existing Indian burial and effigy
mounds in the United States. In relation
to the crop circle formation, there
are more than 500 Indian mounds within
a 15-mile radius. Nearly all exist on
private property, and most remain unmarked,
un-surveyed, and unidentified. The closest
grouping of Indian mounds to the crop
circles is one of these unidentified
groupings. We noted four geometrically
aligned mounds approximately 1 mile
from the formation that point in close
alignment to the crop circles.

The closest communities
to the crop circles of Mayville, Kekoskee,
and Horicon all lie along the southern
edge of the Horicon National Wildlife
Refuge and Ice Age National Scientific
Reserve and the Horicon Marsh State
Wildlife Area. Combined, these two protected
parks make up the largest freshwater
cattail marsh in the USA – some
36,000 acres. The area is an extinct
glacial lake carved out during the last
Ice Age 12,000 years ago, and had been
used by Native Americans since at least
that time as a sacred hunting ground.
For thousands of years the marsh existed
as a haven for wildlife that made it
attractive to the Native Americans.
In the last two hundred years, though,
the marsh has undergone dramatic changes
by the white settlers to the region.
The marsh at one time was almost completely
drained in an attempt to use the land
for farming, but the experiment failed.
The marsh had also been dammed up to
create a 50-mile lake, but owners of
the inundated land successfully sued
to take down the dam to recover their
property. Over the past few decades
reconstruction and conservation efforts
have helped the marsh to recover, but
overpopulation in the area, industrial
pollution, and farm runoff are again
posing as threats to the Horicon Marsh.

Also just south of
the crop circle formation are two notable
geologic formations: Ledge Park in which
the Niagara (rock) Escarpment rises
up and becomes exposed from under the
Great Lakes, and Iron Ridge, a notable
concentration of iron ore that was so
accessible, it became the site of the
first iron mining in the Midwest. Ledge
Park is also the site of a series of
Indian petroglyphs – at least
one of which was conclusively determined
to align to the rising of the sun on
the solstices.

Directly under the
crop circle formation however, and in
much of the general area is a vast formation
of limestone deposits, which have been
continually mined for at least the last
150 years. Crop circles around the world
have been noted to occur along aquifers,
or water-bearing rock formations, notably
limestone and greensand. This appears
to be the case with this formation.
The eyewitness, Art Rantala, told us
of how he had dug into the field in
which the formation was found several
years ago while participating in a government
project. They dug into the ground and
exposed limestone just two feet under
the soil at the bottom of the hill on
which the crop circles formed. At the
top of the hill, the limestone was found
to be down just 10 feet deep.

Crop circles have also
been noted to appear near some sort
of body of water: a creek, a pond, a
drainage ditch, etc, and with this formation,
water also appears to be in close proximity.
Not only does the formation occur directly
above a limestone aquifer, but directly
at the bottom of the hill, West of where
the formation appeared is a drainage
ditch. East of the formation, just one
field away, is the north branch of the
Rock River.

Crop Circles have also
been known to form in close proximity
to power lines, and again this circle
site is no exception – less than
a hundred yards from the circles runs
a power line, and just up the hill,
the closest transformer box was less
than 100 feet from the workshop where
Mr. Rantala watched the crop circles
form.

Our research team had
at this point in our investigation enough
conclusive scientific evidence as well
as a body of supporting contextual detail
to show that the Mayville/Kekoskee crop
circle formation had not been hoaxed
by people using mechanical means, and
that the evidence uncovered supports
the eyewitness testimony given to us
by Mr. Rantala.

US Military
Visits Crop Circles
Roger Sugden and I arrived at the formation
after Roger’s aerial photo flight,
meeting Dr. Lietzau and Gary Kahlhamer
who were already there. We were surprised
by the appearance of a military helicopter
circling the formation very low to the
ground.

[View of the military helicopter circling
over the crop formation.]

The helicopter circled
the formation for a few minutes (with
our team in excited amazement), at which
point it then flew off in the direction
of the Horicon Marsh. It looked as if
it flew the length of the marsh, and
then flew back in our direction, but
not as close. It then flew off towards
the Southeast where we eventually lost
sight of it. In all the crop circle
reports in the USA in my database (over
250) I have never seen one that mentioned
overflights by US military helicopters,
or that the US military might be interested
in crop circle reports. Of course, we
have seen this repeatedly in the UK,
but not in the USA.

[Blurred
photo of Air Force soldier watching
us with binoculars.]

After the helicopter
left and our team settled down, we returned
to gathering additional soil and plant
samples from the field. After about
40-45 minutes, I noticed that we were
also under surveillance on the ground.
Looking up the hill towards Mr. Rantala’s
workshop, I noticed a man in a camouflage
uniform watching us with binoculars.

After I informed the
rest of the team that we were being
watched, the uniformed soldier got into
his car, drove down the hill towards
where we were parked, and slowly passed
us noting our license plates. He drove
to the end of the block, turned his
car around, drove back to where we were
standing and parked his car. He got
out and walked directly into the formation.
Dr. Lietzau was practically jogging
after him into the field. We decided
on the spot that since we were going
to publish our results on the Internet
for everyone to share, we were not going
to hold back anything from the military.

[Photo of US Air Force soldier in crop
circle.]

As we chatted with
this soldier from the US Air Force (who
we had now identified by his uniform),
he told us that he was part of a
Special Crop Circle Investigative Unit
in the US Air Force, and that
they had been looking into this formation
for the past couple of weeks, temporarily
based out of a hanger in Milwaukee.
He also told us that this unit was originally
based out of Scott Air Force base located
in Illinois (southeast of St. Louis,
Missouri). He further told us that this
team had investigated two crop circles
that appeared near “Downing, Illinois”
last summer (2002), but that he hadn’t
participated in that investigation --
but others had. We had not heard of
that crop circle report in Illinois,
so we are checking to verify that information.
As far as we have uncovered, there is
a “Downing Park, Illinois”
which isn’t too far from Scott
A.F.B., but no “Downing, Illinois”
(using MapQuest and MS Streets), so
Downing Park is what he may have meant.
[If anyone has information about this
reported formation please contact us
and let us know so we can confirm this
piece of information.]

I played tour guide,
and walked him around the formation
-- pointing out the various crop lay
anomalies, our ideas on where the formation
began to be flattened, and how various
parts of it were flattened in which
order. We told him of some of our plant
anomaly findings, and asked several
questions (including a few rather silly
ones) most of which he dodged or declined
to answer. I offered my contact information
to him, which he took, and our team
offered to cooperate with his investigative
team by providing them with any information
we might find (and hoping they might
reciprocate). I told him that we had
traveled up from Michigan, and that
our investigative report would be published
on CropCircleNews.com. He said he was
familiar with the web site, and believed
that someone from his team would most
likely get in contact with me soon about
the formation. He said he knew we were
from Michigan (most likely from our
license plates), and that their team
was familiar with CropCircleNews.com.
He stayed in the formation about 10-15
minutes, at which point he seemed satisfied,
and he returned to his car and immediately
got on his cell phone, and left.

One of the questions
we asked him has left us with a nagging
inconsistency: we asked him if he had
been on the helicopter when it had overflown
us about 45 minutes before he appeared.
He said he had been on board the helicopter,
and that besides himself there were
two other members of this special crop
circle investigative unit, a pilot,
and a co-pilot on board. He had also
told us that they were operating out
of a hanger in Milwaukee. Milwaukee
is at least an hour and a half drive
from where the crop circles were located.
From the time we lost sight of the helicopter
to the time he appeared, he couldn’t
have flown all the way to Milwaukee,
got in a car and driven all the way
back to the site. Either he wasn’t
on board the helicopter, or the helicopter
landed elsewhere closer by for him to
drive back to the formation in the allotted
time. We don’t know at this point.
Of course, we are working to confirm
all the details of this soldier’s
freely-given information.

Over the next few days
we will be in the process of filing
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests
for additional information about this
possible USAF special investigative
crop circle unit, and any crop circle
information they may have uncovered.
Of course, any information we obtain
we will share with the crop circle community.

Acknowledgements
Our scientific research team would like
to thank the people of the communities
of Kekoskee, Mayville and Horicon for
their incredible hospitality and cooperation
in allowing us to conduct our research!
We absolutely enjoyed the wonderful
time we spent in and around their beautiful
communities, and around the amazing
Horicon Marsh. Oftentimes, as crop circle
investigators, we struggle to conduct
our investigations and face ridicule,
but in this case the people we met were
wonderfully interested, collaborative,
cooperative, and supportive of us, and
our investigative work. We hope that
by sharing this report with them - and
the world - about the crop circle formation
in their community, we can build a broader
understanding of the causative nature
of crop circles worldwide.

[All photos are ?
2003 Roger Sugden, Gary Kahlhamer, Charles
Lietzau, and Jeffrey Wilson, and may
not be reprinted, republished, or reused
without permission.]

Additional analysis
from Charles N. Lietzau, Ph.D

ANALYSIS I: NODE (COLLAR)
LENGTH: CONTROLS --VS--FORMATION:

CONTROLS, (4 SETS,
LONG DISTANCE) --VS--

FORMATION, (4 SETS,
CIRCLES TWO AND THREE):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN,
JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: L-NEAT::POSITIVE:
FORMATION CONCLUSIVELY AUTHENTIC :

Taken as a unit, one
set from standing inner circle of CIRCLE
TWO,

together with two sets
from the standing crescent and one set
from the downed circle/epicenter of
CIRCLE THREE register as highly significant
when compared with 4 sets of Long Distance
Controls in a corrected Student’s-t
Test. Each set consists of 10, (rarely
9) samples. This test was carried out
on the apical leaf node of the winter
wheat plants. measurements were made
in the field after each set was collected.
A single significant difference is sufficient
to conclusively verify a formation as
authentic.

Only "unbent"
nodes were used in the determination.
Most apical nodes of downed formation
plants showed advanced bending (estimated
at approximately 30 degrees or more)
which requires the outer surface of
the curve to elongate. This would have
resulted in highly significant differences
with virtually every sample. If these
samples were taken within a week of
the circles’ formation, such measurements
would have been used. Controlled experiments
by Levengood, et al., have determined
that recovery bending by wheat does
not reach the level of significant elongation
of the node collar, (pulvinus), within
that time period. However, the formation
WAS WITNESSED to have formed on July
4th, 2003, and these samplings were
made three weeks later between July
23rd and July 26th, 2003.

Therefore the highly
significant bent apical nodes were inadmissible
as evidence since sufficient time had
elapsed for any genuine heating effects
to be masked by subsequent recovery
bending due to photo- and (negative),
geo-tropism. Unbent nodes were the rule
in standing plants, but the exception
in downed formation plants. Thus using
only unbent nodes was similar to carrying
out a statistical test to determine
if professional basketball players are,
on the average, taller than the general
population. The catch is, that you are
only allowed to use the two shortest
members from each team. You would find
some individual samples that were sub-marginal,
that is, fairly tall but not, by themselves,
outside the range of a random sample
of average humans. However, taken as
a unit, the set of professional basketball
players would, most likely, display
a pattern of significantly greater average
height, despite the restriction in the
sampling. This turned out to be the
case with the formation samples as well.

Over 15 sets of samples
were collected, and their lengthy analysis
will allow precise graphing of the energy
distribution and other patterns. However,
a valid sample for the determination
of authenticity by the L-NEAT Process,
"Levengood Node Enlargement Analysis
Test," only requires a combined
sample size of 31, yielding 29 degrees
of freedom, to approximate infinity
in a Student’s-t Test. Thus,

-2-

on the 1st day, just
two samples were measured in the field
after having been randomly selected,
but before being packaged. One was collected
in the standing wheat outside the formation,
but only at a distance of about 30 yards
which is not sufficient to avoid a possible
Peripheral Beer-Lambert Spillover effect,
and thus is considered to be a Peripheral
sample rather than a control. More formation
samples were taken on the third day,
along with 5 Long Distance Controls
from the same field, but at a distance
of about 1/4 mile from the formations.
The 1st LD-Control sample, the one with
the smallest average node collar length
was judged to have been "depauperate"
due to wind exposure and has not been
included in the calculations as that
would skew the results away from the
controls in favor of the formation samples.
Similarly, the actual sampling process
was random from within a "typical"
portion of the source. There were only
two selection criteria, both of which
would have tended to skew the outcome
in favor of the controls. First, only
essentially unbent nodes were selected
to be measured. Second, it was a rule
to include at least one, but no more
than two "smaller" plants
to ensure a fair sampling distribution.
Both of these "strictures"
against the formation plants mean that
a fairly large difference beyond normal
must be present for any of the formation
samples to prove significant, and some
might be expected to be "sub-marginal."
Both of these proved to be the case.
Failing to apply these strictures which
are called for by the time delay between
the origin of the formation and its
sampling, would result in more highly
significant results, but they might
technically, run the risk of being invalidated.

The exact measurements
and average lengths of the apical node,
excluding bent ones, is given on the
data page. However, it will be noted
that two of the formation samples, have
an average length just barely shorter
than the longest LD-Control, but still
greater than the other 3 LD-Controls.
These are considered sub-marginal, and,
by themselves, are suggestive but not
significant. However, taking into account
that the energies are variable even
within the same formation, two more
formation samples, measured in the field,
proved to be significant on their own.
When all four of the formation samples
are treated as a unit and compared with
all four of the LD-Controls, the "trend"
of the sub-marginal samples proves strong
enough that the complete unit displays
a pattern of longer node collars which
is highly significant, and thus, L-NEAT::POSITIVE.
Using the Student’s-t Test, the
difference proved significant at the
two-tailed level of p = 0.005.

As indicated elsewhere,
the Circles are numbered in order of
APPEARANCE as described by witness,
Mr. Arthur Ratala. The first was the
uniform circle with a straight pathway.
This circle formed at the northernmost
end of the formation. The second was
at the southernmost end of the formation
and consists of a flattened circle with
a smaller standing circle off center
toward the north. The third circle to
form is roughly between the first two
although not quite in a linear orientation.
It consists of an outer ring with a
downed circle at the north end, leaving
a standing

-3-

crescent in between.
It formed at just the exact location
to join the pathway formed with the
first circle, thus creating a connected
corridor between them, which is

centered in the open
space between the ends of the crescent.
In addition, circles 2

and 3 are seen to be
negative images of each other. If circle
2 were able to be lifted and used to
"cover" circle 3, the raised
inner circle of 2 would fit nicely into
the downed inside of the crescent of
circle 3. Similarly, the raised crescent
of 3 would match the downed portion
of circle 2.

FORMATION CIRCLE 2;
SAMPLE 5: This sample of 10 standing
stalks with unbent apical nodes came
from within the standing smaller circle,
just far enough inside its easternmost
edge so that it was beyond any downed
stalks or leaning marginal ones. Measured
in the field after samples 1 through
4 had been collected and wrapped in
brown mailing paper for storage and
later analysis, the mean node collar
length was 3.99 mm. Collected on Wednesday,
7/23/03.

FORM CIRCLE 3; SAMPLE
1: This sample of 10 stalks was taken
from the inside of the standing crescent,
just east of its center. The mean node
collar length as measured in the field
was 4.56 mm. Measurements were made
using magnifying reading glasses and
a plastic metric ruler. Collected and
measured in the field on Friday, 7/25/03.

FORM CIRCLE 3; SAMPLE
2: Also taken from the standing crescent
just to the west of its center. Although
only a few yards away from the previous
sample, the mean collar node length
was only 3.91 mm. This proved to be
less than the largest Long Distance
Control Sample, but greater than the
other three in this series of statistical
analyses. Not significant on its own,
it is considered to be sub-marginal
as it does have a strong contribution
towards the combined formation samples.

FORM CIRCLE 3; SAMPLE
3: This sample consisted of 10 specimens
taken from the downed plants in the
circular patch within the standing crescent
in the immediate area of the "epicenter"
of the swirled pattern. It was anticipated
that this would be the region of maximum
energy deformation in an authentic circle.
Nine of the 10 stalks were carefully
selected following the protocol and
avoiding any noticeable bent nodes.
Specimen #4 was purposely taken because
it was characteristic of the highly
bent nodes, approximating 40 degrees,
which made up the overwhelming majority
of the downed plants. As expected, the
bent condition resulted in a greater
degree of node collar lengthening and
its measurement was one of the largest
at 6.0 mm. This specific specimen has
been purposely excluded from the statistical
analyses as it does not belong to the
same population of plants with unbent
apical nodes which makes up all the
rest of the samples. With specimen #4
excluded, the mean node collar length
was 4.47 mm.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL;
SAMPLE 2: In-field measurements of one
sample taken on 7/23/03 as far as practical
in a westerly direction confirmed that
it needed to be treated as a PERIPHERAL
sample due to Peripheral Beer-Lambert
Energy Spillover as documented by Levengood.
Since the formation was near the southeastern
edge of the field, it was only possible
to sample the standing peripheral plants
within a range of less than about 50
meters. As a result, on Friday, 7/25/03,

-4-

five Long Distant-Control
samples were taken from appropriate
areas in the same field but located
about 1/4 mile north of the formation.
The first sample was taken

from about 2 yards
within the western edge. After sampling,
a quick check of the visually longer
apical nodes showed that the majority
would be under 3.5 mm. in

length. This sample
was set aside until Sample 2 was taken
further in at a more "typical"
location. Measurement of Sample 2 which
had a mean node collar length of 3.56
mm. made it clear that Sample 1 should
be disregarded as depauperate due to
being too close to the margin of the
field and exposure to prevailing winds.

However, it was noticed
that at another 6 meters or so to the
east, lay an irregularly shaped downed
patch of approximately 8 feet to a side
in a roughly triangular formation. This
was recognized as possibly being an
example of a patch downed by RANDOM
ENERGY SCATTERING, a phenomenon also
documented in work by Levengood, Burke,
and Talbott. This proved to be the case
when a sample was collected and subsequently
measured in the field. The recognition
of likely authentic areas ahead of time
might cause some researchers to posit
the need for blind or double blind experiments
to avoid inadvertent bias. This would
be the case were the values decided
by some form of subjective rating system.
However, when using a recognized international
standard as simple as a metric ruler,
one is equipped with a uniform measuring
device and a applies a standard procedure.
Measurements are expected to vary within
plus or minus one unit in the last estimated
decimal place. However, it is impossible
with skew the results, even inadvertently,
without misreading the ruler. If this
danger is consciously avoided by scrupulous
technique, "blind-type" experiments
are uncalled for regardless of the anticipated
outcome. A credible scientist recognizes
that the conclusion must be based entirely
upon the experimental outcome whether
it matches their expectations or not.
If the technique is applied capably,
neither the hypothesis, anticipated
outcome, reputation of the researcher,
nor any other factor can diminish the
significance of the data.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL;
SAMPLE 3: This set of 10 specimens was
collected about 10 yards into the west
edge of the field about 40 yards further
north than the previous one. An effort
was made in each case following sample
1 to make sure that a typical healthy
location was sampled. The distance from
the formation would be in excess of
300 yards. The mean node collar length
was 3.85 mm.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL;
SAMPLE 4: This was taken at the greatest
linear distance possible, from within
the northern edge of the wheat field
half way between the western and eastern
borders, and about 6 yards into the
crop. The mean of this sample was 3.56
mm.

LONG DISTANCE CONTROL;
SAMPLE 5: Taken from the upper or western
edge of the field at great distance.
This sample was collected from the vicinity
of another previous soil sample collection
site using a borderline tree stump as
a marker. While only 3 yards into the
crop, an area of robust healthy growth
was purposely chosen. The mean node
collar length was 4.01.

-5-

Interestingly enough,
apparently due to proper crop management,
there were not enough apparent naturally
downed stalks to collect for use as
a comparison with the other samples.

ANALYSIS II: NODE (COLLAR) LENGTH: CONTROLS
--VS--PERIPHERAL

BEER-LAMBERT ENERGY
SPILLOVER:

CONTROLS, (4 SETS,
LONG DISTANCE) --VS--

PERIPHERAL BEER-LAMBERT
ENERGY SPILLOVER, (1 SET):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN,
JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: L-NEAT::POSITIVE:
PERIPHERAL BEER-LAMBERT ENERGY

SPILLOVER CONCLUSIVELY
AUTHENTIC:

SAMPLES:

CONTROLS AS DESCRIBED
ABOVE:

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
2 = 1-10; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
3 = 11-20; MEAN = 3.85 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
4 = 21-30; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
5 = 31-40; MEAN = 4.01 mm.

PERIPHERAL BEER-LAMBERT
ENERGY SPILLOVER SAMPLE:

This sample was taken
from the standing wheat near the formation
on the first day of collection, Wednesday,
7/23/03. Before sampling, it was recognized
that due to the nearness of the formation
to the western edge of the field, there
was insufficient distance to ensure
that the crop was free from the effects
of energy spillover as determined by
Levengood, since the distance to this
sample location was limited to about
30 yards. Levengood has plotted the
degree of plant tissue and seedling/germination
effects as a function of distance from
the epicenter. This shows that there
are at least two distinct energy effects.
The first is a "flash heating"
effect that extends outwards beyond
the boundaries of the formation following
a distribution described by the Beer-Lambert
Law. The second is a directional force
that actually downs the plants within
the formation. As a result, plant tissue
and other changes are common beyond
the margins of the formation in standing
crop which appears otherwise normal.
This factor must be taken into account
to ensure that control samples are taken
from a great enough distance that this
effect is no longer significant. This
sample was purposely collected and measured
in the field to serve as a guideline
to determine the possible presence of
this peripheral energy spillover effect.
Even though the apical nodes were unbent
on nine of the specimens, their node
collar lengths proved to be greater
than the formation sample, Circle 2;
Sample 5, taken next in sequence from
a relatively short distance away.

-6-

The mean node collar
length of this Energy Spillover sample
was 4.54 mm. As in other cases, a single
specimen, #5, was eliminated from the
statistical calculation due to demonstrating
noticeable bending and therefore, an
increased node collar length beyond
the rest of the sample population. Even
so, the increased node lengths of the
peripheral sample proved significant
at the level of p = 0.022 by means of
the t Test.

ANALYSIS III: NODE
(COLLAR) LENGTH: CONTROLS --VS--RANDOM

ENERGY SCATTERING:

CONTROLS, (4 SETS, LONG DISTANCE) --VS--

RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING,
(1 SET):

SOURCE: MAYVILLE, WISCONSIN,
JULY 4th, TRIPLE CIRCLE FORMATION.

RESULTS: L-NEAT::POSITIVE:
RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING

CONCLUSIVELY AUTHENTIC:

SAMPLES:

CONTROLS AS DESCRIBED
ABOVE:

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
2 = 1-10; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
3 = 11-20; MEAN = 3.85 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
4 = 21-30; MEAN = 3.56 mm.

LD-CONTROL; SAMPLE
5 = 31-40; MEAN = 4.01 mm.

RANDOM ENERGY SCATTERING SAMPLE:

While approaching LD-Control
Sample 2, located beyond 150 yards north
of the formation as already described,
a "randomly downed" patch
was observed about 15 yards into the
formation in an area of healthy growth.
Levengood et al. have documented the
fact that not all authentic energy effects
are limited to geometrical formations.
Many randomly downed patches, either
in conjunction with a recognizable formation,
or by themselves, display authentic
energy signatures which have been determined
by controlled experiments to be absent
from formations created by any demonstrated
hoaxing techniques. This patch was one
of several examples observed throughout
the formation field. Since its location
was ideal in terms of being in the vicinity
of a control sample and at sufficient
distance from the formation to eliminate
the Beer-Lambert energy spillover, it
too was sampled. Its shape was irregularly
triangular with a distance of less than
10 feet per side. Within, the downed
stalks radiated outwards from an apparent,
off center, epicenter. One clump of
wheat had stalks downed in opposite
directions. Some of the downed stalks
were gently curved over from the base,
whereas others were definitely kinked
between the nodes. The remoteness of
this location and the lack of

-7-

any disturbance in
the surrounding wheat ensured the likelihood
that Dr. Lietzau, who collected, evaluated,
measured, and stored all plant samples,
was the first person to approach this
downed patch. Once again, only downed
stalks which did not display a bent
apical node were collected for statistical
analysis. Interestingly enough, specimen
#9 which displayed a massive expulsion
cavity on its apical node, also possessed
in that same node, the single largest
measurement for a node collar length
at 7.0 mm. Since, despite the massive
expulsion cavity, the node maintained
a straight orientation, it was included
in the sample measurements. As can be
seen in the statistical analysis, however,
this sample would also have had the
single largest mean node collar length,
even if specimen #9 had been eliminated.
Field time was limited and determination
of any peripheral energy spillover was
not a primary priority, so the immediate
periphery was not sampled. The mean
node collar length for this sample was
5.1 mm. Not surprisingly, when compared
to the LD-Controls this was significant
with p <0.001.

MINIMUM OF 4 SAMPLES
PER CIRCLE FROM ALL 3 CIRCLES, FROM
ALL PARTS INCLUDING BOTH STANDING AND
DOWNED AREAS AND FORMATION PATHWAY.

ALL SAMPLES = HIGH
MAGNETIC RESPONSE.

While most of these
samples and more were preserved for
more exacting later analysis, an effort
was made to utilize a field test for
magnetic response so that this factor
could be conclusively analyzed on site.
An extendable probe with a 1 centimeter
diameter cylindrical magnetic tip was
employed. This device is capable of
lifting an 8 pound load. In evaluating
a sample site, the soil was loosened
to a depth of approximately 1 inch with
the blade of a pocket knife, and the
probe inserted into the sample. The
magnetic response was often observed
before any soil preparation was undertaken,
however the actual test recorded followed
a strict protocol. In addition, the
presence of low magnetic response samples
in the controls confirmed that the act
of homogenizing the soil with a steel
blade was not responsible for the magnetic
effects. The field test criteria are
depicted by actual photos in the report.
In the case of a High Magnetic Response,
the probe became deeply covered and
completely obscured under multiple layers
of adhering soil particles, even after
gentle tapping. In contrast, in a Low
Magnetic Response, the soil particles
failed to completely cover the surface
of the probe and the magnetic head was
unobscured in many areas. The difference
was visually dramatic and no intermediate
samples were encountered which would
require the use of personal judgment.
Visually, the Low Response appeared
to be less than 25% of the High Response
by bulk volume.

The photo showing a
Low Magnetic Response was taken by flashlight
at the southern periphery of the field
about 40 yards from the formation. Plants
at this distance were within the range
of the peripheral Beer-Lambert energy
spillover effect. It is possible that
the distribution of the magnetic effect
follows a different law. It is also
possible that there is a spillover effect
that will be discovered during laboratory
analysis, but that its intensity had
dropped low enough to provide a strong
visual contrast with the formation samples.
In any case, this peripheral sample
can be validly included with the controls
as an "Extra-Formation" population.

CONTROL SAMPLE 1: Taken
from the edge of the field on the northeastern
margin. This location was uphill by
about 3 meters and at a distance of
over 100 yards from the formation. This
sample displayed LOW MAGNETIC RESPONSE,
with an anecdotal visual estimate of
25% the strength of a typical formation
sample.

CONTROL SAMPLE 2: Also
from the upper edge but at a distance
of approximately 50 yards further north.
Long Distance Control Sample 5 for node
length used the same tree trunk in the
distance as a location marker but was
taken

-9-

from farther into the
field. This control sample exhibited
HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE.

CONTROL SAMPLE 3: This
sample also came from the northeastern

portion of the field
at an estimated distance of over 250
yards. Visually, the field test was
entered in the notes as "barely
magnetic."

CONTROL SAMPLE 4: This
sample was taken by entering the field
at the far northern edge about midway
between the sides and in line with the
distant formation, approximately 300
yards to the south. It was also described
in the notes as visually "barely
magnetic."

Although the number
of Extra Formation samples is fairly
low, the distinctiveness of the response
categories coupled with the uniformly
high formation responses, provided a
sufficient sample for the valid application
of a 2 x 2 contingency table using the
Fisher Exact Probability Test which
is designed for smaller samples with
cells that may include values below
five, including zero. The uniformly
HIGH MAGNETIC RESPONSE rating of the
formation samples displays a significant
difference from the more random distribution
in the Control samples at the level
of p = 0.0147 for a two-tailed test.

For the sake of statistical
analysis, the same four LONG DISTANCE
CONTROL SAMPLES described above in node
collar enlargement tests were used as
a control sample, although the categories
of Formation and Non-Formation alone
would suffice using a random distribution
of .5 for equal areas searched. Expulsion
cavities are formed when the internal
pressure in the node collar, (actually
the new leaf pulvinus which tightly
ensheathes the node and stem for support),
becomes great enough to rupture the
walls of the "veins" which
contain water carrying vessels as well
as sensitive parenchyma cells. This
release of internal pressure can take
many forms depending on the tissues
and pressures involved. Often, a single
vessel may rupture in an outward direction
leaving behind a "pore" like
ostium which remains due to the semi-plastic
nature of the fibrils in the cell walls.
Occasionally the rupture may burst the
vein in both directions leaving a perforation
through which the nodal structure of
the stem itself is visible. In a more
severe case, the rupture may extend
longitudinally for the length of the
node collar. Finally, in the most extreme
cases, those of MASSIVE EXPULSION CAVITIES,
many or all of the veins may rupture
simultaneously resulting in a complete
lateral or transverse separation of
the node collar along one side, or completely
around the stem. The free ends then
retract as the pressure is released
and retain this configuration. (See
the photo in the report). When this
happens, the edges of the gaping perforation
may match in terms of irregular features,
but cannot close as the tissues have
retained the distorted condition. This
is clearly distinct from cracks caused
by physical forces alone such as trampling
underfoot, which do not involve distortion
and thus the edges can be fitted back
together. Levengood, Burke, and Talbott
report that in over 300 cases examined,
with dozens to hundreds of controls
for each, an expulsion cavity has never
been found in a standing, non formation
plant. Expulsion cavities have also
proven to be totally absent in those
cases of hoaxed or otherwise man-made
circles which have been scientifically
examined. Thus, the presence of a single
distinct expulsion cavity is diagnostic
for an authentic formation. Only Circles
2 and 3 were examined for the presence
of expulsion cavities. Many degrees
of distortion were present, however,
to avoid any questions relating to personal
judgment of various defects, only massive
expulsion cavities were counted for
the purposes if this analysis. Although
many distinct but lesser expulsion cavities
were present in the downed formation
stalks, a square meter quadrat was marked
out in the downed crescent of Circle
2, then systematically examined for
the presence of Massive Expulsion Cavities.
A total of 14 were recovered from this
sample quadrat with over an hour’s
worth of intensive searching. A superficial
examination of a few square meters nearby
resulted in another 15 samples being
discovered in a short time, this time
by the entire 4 person team. Only these
29 specimens were considered for authentication
of the formation, even though Massive
Expulsion Cavities were encountered
regularly enough in both Circles 2 and
3 that they were given away to visitors
along with a printed explanation. Time
did not allow a similar inspection of
Circle 1, which consisted entirely of
downed stalks and was left for last
in the sequence of investigation.

A statistical analysis
page is not included for Massive Expulsion
Cavities as even the small sample analyzed
above results in a significant difference
orders of magnitude above the values
posted in probability tables. The presence
of Massive Expulsion Cavities is a diagnostic
feature of authentic formations when
present. Were the future to bring the
new discovery of one or a few in control
samples outside the Beer-Lambert energy
spillover periphery, then a statistical
analysis of their frequency would still
prove the formation to be genuine.

This scientific analysis
of the field data from the Mayville
Circle was prepared by Charles N. Lietzau,
Ph.D., MUFON Consultant. The entire
field team was involved in securing
sufficient samples for a valid determination.
Other members of the team, in alphabetical
order, include, Mr. Gary Kahlhamer,
of Mayville, Wisconsin;

I would also like to
extend my sincerest gratitude to numerous
local residents and business people
who were completely supportive in many
ways in addition to extending gracious
hospitality. Some are given recognition
in the report, others will simply be
fondly remembered.